User:Kingap21/Apology (act)/Chelsea.nakayama Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Kingap21
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kingap21/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes, and it is clearly indicated
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes,
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The sections are mentioned but not described.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? that is not clear
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is well written and concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes it is
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All of the content seems up to date and adds meaning to the original article
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It doesn't directly, but I think that the subject matter is not exclusive to one group.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. I think the subject matter is neutral on its own.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, all topics are covered fairly
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. The information is provided but not presented in a way that doesn't attempt to persuade the reader.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? The sources are a bit dated, but within the last 25 years
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it is well written and added information to the article
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I think so because it added a more information on the different sections
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The information added is well written and informative
 * How can the content added be improved? Perhaps the added additions could be written in a more casual/ communicative way.